Shelf Stable Smbc Recipe?

Baking By sweets2thesweet Updated 22 Aug 2015 , 1:57pm by AAtKT

sweets2thesweet Posted 19 Aug 2015 , 5:54pm
post #1 of 27

Does anyone have a Swiss Meringue Buttercream recipe that has been lab tested to contain .85 or lower water activity?  My go-to recipe (1 c. sugar, 4 oz egg whites, 3 sticks butter) tested at .88 which is too high to be approved for cottage food law.  I really don't want to have to add powdered sugar to the recipe, that defeats the whole purpose of the silky smooth, not too sweet deliciousness.  Anyone have a recipe they know works??  TIA!

26 replies
-K8memphis Posted 19 Aug 2015 , 6:19pm
post #2 of 27

this didn't work for me but it does for a lot of people -- could you sub some shortening for the butter that should reduce the water to some extent -- a third or half? 

just a thought --

i'm so glad you are doing this --

hey what about just a good dollop of some good old fashioned cornstarch?

-K8memphis Posted 19 Aug 2015 , 6:21pm
post #3 of 27

re: post #2

i mean it didn't work in the sense that i did not like the icing with part shortening -- i've never had my products tested -- i was just brain storming a coupla possible ideas

Rfisher Posted 19 Aug 2015 , 6:25pm
post #4 of 27

Does your cottage food law restrict only the water activity?  If that is the case, sub in some egg white powder for the liquid eggwhite, and of course don't add in the recommended water to reconstitute.

but I really think the end testing would be up to you, or would your state accept someone else's?

sweets2thesweet Posted 19 Aug 2015 , 6:27pm
post #5 of 27

I'll have to get the recipe re-tested, I'm just hoping to have a recipe I know will get approved so I only have to re-test it once.  Using the meringue powder is an interesting idea...  Thanks for helping with some ideas, you guys!

*Last edited by sweets2thesweet on 19 Aug 2015 , 6:28pm
-K8memphis Posted 19 Aug 2015 , 6:35pm
post #6 of 27

wait wait -- rfisher said egg white powder which is different than meringue powder so that's become two ideas for you but meringue powder has starch, the egg powder and sugar in varying amounts so...y'know it's got gum arabic in it which is a great strengthener for royal icing -- so maybe even just a bit of that -- i'm thinking of the cost on the meringue powder versus cost on gum arabic and i would so try cornstarch first and gum arabic next

sweets2thesweet Posted 19 Aug 2015 , 6:45pm
post #7 of 27

Thank you, K8!  I hadn't realized there was a difference.

-K8memphis Posted 19 Aug 2015 , 6:51pm
post #8 of 27

but egg white powder is brilliant, rf --  clap.png  try that for sure

Norcalhiker Posted 20 Aug 2015 , 3:02am
post #9 of 27

The state of Texas sells an ebook ($9) with 24 icing recipes that have been AW tested.  I've not purchased it bc I moved from TX some years ago, so I don't know if a real buttercream is included.


http://texascottagefoodlaw.com

Cakemom21 Posted 20 Aug 2015 , 3:11pm
post #10 of 27

I am working on my CFO (Southern California) and my county will not let me use any eggs (so no egg whites) in my icing recipe. They also will not let me use Meringue powder (so no royal icing for my cookies).

-K8memphis Posted 20 Aug 2015 , 3:23pm
post #11 of 27

i use the faux chocolate from the grocery store for my cookies -- i usually just use it un-colored -- what part of socal -- was just there in lake elsinore in july --

and if i'm in a good mood and i remember i put some vanilla powder in there -- killer

-K8memphis Posted 20 Aug 2015 , 3:26pm
post #12 of 27

it's a wonderful thing on cut out gingerbread -- unexpected and so much nicer than crunchy royal

Rfisher Posted 20 Aug 2015 , 3:35pm
post #13 of 27

Cakemom21 - yes. I mentioned IF the OP's cottage food laws for their state only restrict water activity.......

i hope no one glossed over that.

i am not versed in all the states different laws, but I do believe the most lenient ones state water activity, then follow that up with the qualifier of non potentially hazardous food.....which normally exclude eggs. But hey, I can be wrong..........

heated debates can go on referencing cooked eggs, Ph, water activity, stars aligning, and non hazardous status.

Info on boards translating guidelines like these means beans to another.  Each person selling should follow the guidance of their local HD.  That's where the responsibility buck would stop, and should hold up under law scrutiny if the worst would happen.


sweets2thesweet Posted 20 Aug 2015 , 5:54pm
post #14 of 27

Utah law allows for eggs, as long as they're cooked over 160*.  My only hurdle right now is the water activity.  That Texas booklet is a great idea!  They say that it includes SMBC, but they include non-potentially hazardous recipes and potentially hazardous recipes.  I wish I knew which category the SMBC fell into before I order it.  I don't really want to pay $9 for them to tell me it's a potentially hazardous recipe.

carver1 Posted 20 Aug 2015 , 6:29pm
post #15 of 27

Thank you all for this thread.

AAtKT Posted 20 Aug 2015 , 6:50pm
post #16 of 27


It does contain a non-potentially hazardous SMBC recipe... 

pH 7.83

aW 0.85



Cakemom21 Posted 20 Aug 2015 , 10:11pm
post #17 of 27

@-K8memphis  I live in Moreno Valley which is not far from Lake Elsinore.


sweets2thesweet Posted 21 Aug 2015 , 1:59pm
post #18 of 27

Thank you, AAtKT!  I went ahead and purchased the booklet.  Interestingly enough, the only difference in the included recipe is more butter.  I'll have to look into whether that would work for me.

sweets2thesweet Posted 21 Aug 2015 , 6:06pm
post #19 of 27

While we're on the subject, anyone ever had a 2-1 ganache recipe tested?

-K8memphis Posted 21 Aug 2015 , 6:13pm
post #20 of 27

cakemom21 --

oh sure we go right by there -- will wave to you next time we visit my sister -- she is an amazing hostess -- she puts chocolates on our pillow like in the fancy hotels --- but she puts my favorite choco -- a pretty blue bag of ghirardelli milk choco chips -- hahahahaha


Pastrybaglady Posted 21 Aug 2015 , 8:56pm
post #21 of 27

I bought it and $9 is very cheap for peace of mind.  I was thinking about sending a sample of SMBC to a lab myself.  I'm sure that alone would cost more than $9.  It's also very interesting to see the recipes that ARE potentially hazardous.  

Pastrybaglady Posted 21 Aug 2015 , 9:06pm
post #22 of 27

I am wondering if you mixed two non hazardous recipes (like cream cheese and SMBC) together if it would still be non hazardous?

Rfisher Posted 22 Aug 2015 , 1:23pm
post #23 of 27

Curious question. How does the Texas CFL approved recipe address flavoring the SMBC?

i have no need for this recipe..not asking for details to try and crack the code without buying.....

just curious.

AAtKT Posted 22 Aug 2015 , 1:33pm
post #24 of 27


The recipe itself is Vanilla Flavored...


As for using other flavorings... Any extract should be similar...

As for those of us who use curds, puddings, etc... I would think it would change the approval potentially... 


I do not live in Texas... I just bought the book for the recipes...  I like recipes... I think there is an addiction in there somewhere...

stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye.png



-K8memphis Posted 22 Aug 2015 , 1:35pm
post #25 of 27

one of several 

facepunch.png

Rfisher Posted 22 Aug 2015 , 1:51pm
post #26 of 27

Extract in a specific amount or less. That makes sence. 

Thx.

AAtKT Posted 22 Aug 2015 , 1:57pm
post #27 of 27


Right back at you K8   punch.png



Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%